“I Do So Love A Bad Boy!”

There’s a delightful video doing the rounds this last couple of weeks – a cover version of Chris Brown’s Look At Me Now by a band called Karmin, notable because Karmin singer Amy Heidemann does an amazing interpretation of bullet-rapping Busta Rhyme’s verses. I watched it, loved it, shared it with my friends. And as I was doing so, I thought, “Chris Brown, eh? He still has a career?”

Yes, as it happens. You might remember Chris Brown as the young man who battered (now ex) girlfriend Rihanna a couple of years ago. Due to the celebrity status of both the victim and the strutting arsehole who beat her up, it was an unfortunately public assault. Some argued that this was a good thing in that it raised awareness (amongst young people who up to then had thought that it was ok to beat up their partners? Dunno). The rest of us flinched at the leaked photographs of Rihanna’s injuries, wished that the press would leave her alone to come to terms with what had happened, and hoped that Mr. Brown soon entered the market for a large boulder he could wedge his bulk under.

And yet this hasn’t happened. Rihanna’s career has gone from strength to strength, and oddly enough, so has Brown’s. Not that I generally keep up to speed with hip-pop artists, but I don’t even recall there being much of a sabbatical. He’s as popular as ever with fans, and has no problem attracting other artists to work with on musical projects.

One might say that Brown is entitled to forgiveness and entitled to move on with his life and career. And indeed he is. But how could a fan bring themselves to support someone who severely assaulted his girlfriend and was never quite convincing in subsequent public apologies? Indeed, at the end of March he threw a dramatic hissy fit backstage at Good Morning America when quizzed about the assault, reportedly breaking a window, leaving the building in a shirtless huff(!) and tweeting afterwards, “I’m so over people bring this past s**t up!! Yet we praise Charlie Sheen and other celebs for there[sic] bulls**t.”

This may be the thing, though. Are the public “allowing” Brown a career because he’s such an entertaining little Veruca Salt?

Social media has made it possible for a celebrity to have virtual one-on-one relationships with his or her fans – Twitter, tumblr, whatever. A celeb now has the power to make connections with the wider world without the deft swipe of a publicist’s whitewash brush. Before, celebrities flourished in stone fortresses, pampered and bubble-wrapped and told marvellous tales about how their personas were received in the outside world. Nowadays it’s like the poor, narcissistic things are kept in Wicker Men in a madhouse garden. Should they wish to say something out-of-character (as in, not becoming of a public figure), it will be seized upon and flung halfway around the world well before their publicist’s spidey-sense gets going. And they may well wish to say something out-of-character, because the fans will lap it up and egg them on, rubbernecking on a delightfully careening ego.

Recently, we’ve seen Charlie Sheen, Mel Gibson, and Lindsay Lohan making headlines for pretty horrific behaviour; Charlie’s hired an entourage of porn stars to live with him, Mel admitted to domestic violence, and Lindsay practically lives in court these days. Yet the public hasn’t denied them their celebrity status, or let them know that such behaviour is not socially acceptable. The public would rather Charlie and Mel and Lindsay kept making asses of themselves. Who wants to see Charlie get well? Who wants to see the erstwhile holier-than-thou Mel get his act together? Who wants to see Lindsay reinvent herself as an indie darling? No one. They’re far more valuable as clowns. No matter if Charlie keels over from an overdose or Mel breaks his girlfriend’s teeth or Lindsay dies in the gutter. Collateral damage.

Do we condone bad behaviour from celebrities simply because they’re celebrities? I don’t think it’s quite as simple as that, but the answer isn’t on par with rocket science, either. Celebrities who behave badly cannot presume that the public will remain empathic, forgiving – even interested. Celebrities who behave badly in a ridiculously over-the-top fashion can, though. We can be entertained as well as feel superior. Is this why Chris Brown still has a glittering pop career?

Or do we really think that battering women isn’t really that big a deal? Do we think that proud patronage of the sex trade isn’t really that big a deal? Do we think that a young woman drowning her talent in alcohol isn’t that big a deal?

[Of course, the other condition under which the general public will forgive a misbehaving celebrity is if that celebrity has a talent that is not interchangeable with a hundred other pretenders (as in Brown’s identipop career). I suppose Roman Polanski would be the prime example here. If he was not a brilliant storyteller and visionary, would we have forgiven him for raping a child?]

Share this:

Like this:

Related

23 Responses

“Who wants to see Charlie get well? Who wants to see the erstwhile holier-than-thou Mel get his act together? Who wants to see Lindsay reinvent herself as an indie darling?”

Well, I do… seeing these celebrities re-invent themselves like that – as long as it was genuine, of course – would be a positive thing.

But it seems that we, the general public, enjoy watching previously respected people on a downward spiral. That says a lot about our standards of entertainment. Personally, I think we should demand better.

Absolutely! In general, we’ve gotten endless fun out of Charlie Sheen’s rants, for example, with very few of us pointing out that the bloke is having some sort of breakdown and needs help, and even fewer pointing out that his behaviour is completely unacceptable.

To be honest I think of the Rihanna pictures every time I hear him sing but he has had some catchy songs and he is always on commercial radio so what can you do.
It is the same with the re-invention of Michael Jackson, there was a time when he was something of a persona no grata and had disappeared from the airwaves. Now there are countless tribute shows.
It is a fundamental question really. Does one judge the art or the artist? Many great works of art were created by people who were in other ways despicable. To be honest the best behaved people don’t tend to be the most creative artists. For that reason I think that artists are allowed to get away with things that would sink the career of others engaged in more strait-laced professional endeavours.

This echoes the last point I made, about how many fellow artists seem reluctant to condemn Roman Polanski because he’s immensely talented.

But Chris Brown? He’s not really an artist in the same sense. He works with huge hit-making machines and doesn’t seem to have offered anything of particular interest throughout his shirtless career. We can’t really say, “Oh well, that’s the addled, crazy mind of the artiste at play”; he comes across more like a spoiled little monster than anything else. And perhaps that’s just as good a reason to keep him in the limelight than his talent or output – do we simply enjoy gasping at his behaviour and tutting at his outbursts?

I think you might be overstating the “glittering” careers that these people still enjoy. Brown hasn’t actually enjoyed the same support from fans since his attack on Rihanna. He still has support, definitely, but he is no longer on the ‘pop megastar’ trajectory he apppeared to be on a few years ago. He had to cancel European legs of his tour last year for instance after being refused entry:

He went from selling out four 50,000 seater nights to struggling to sell 6,500 tickets in Ireland alone. There’s also some good info on his album sales. I wouldn’t say his career is all that rosy to be honest.

Gibson has hardly worked in Hollywood since, and it doesn’t look like anyone will touch him. He is in Jodie Foster’s new film though, which was filmed before the latest collapse.

Lohan’s career is confined to social media reporting now, and Sheen’s comedy comeback tour has totally bombed. It seems we are willing to revel in the social media/news aspect of these people’s lives, but we’re not really buying their “work” otherwise. It’s all a bit odd.

All true. In terms of financial reward and respectable status for each celebrity mentioned, they have most definitely taken a dive. And it’s almost as if they’re forced to jump through more and more flaming hoops to command our attention – Charlie Sheen’s “tour”, for example. Who’s bright idea was that?

I wouldn’t underrate him so much. I am really agnostic about his celebrity, I only know him for his music/video clips and for the Rihanna thing.
I wouldn’t assume that he has no artistic input. It is not easy to break through in the US, that is why so many of the artist from there have very successful and enduring careers. Look at an artis like Ne-Yo as a comparison, you can’t but that kind of style.
A lot of pop stars there either start as producers (Lady Gaga, Keri Hilson) or go on to produce (Kanye, Snoop Dog and the latest smash Afro-Jack).
I am not saying that Chris Brown is one of the super-talents but I wouldn’t assume that he is just part of a ‘hit factory’ either. He has already been around for a long time.

Oh, no doubt he works very hard to maintain this career. I’m making the point, though, that’s he’s hardly on par with Polanski in terms of misbehaving genius. Much pop music is very throwaway, so I don’t think he’s being forgiven on account of his huge contribution to arts and culture.

My problem with the Rihanna / Chris Brown story is that, I wonder would we have been so easy to forgive him if Rihanna hadn’t quickly released two songs in which she waxes lyrical about how much she likes being beaten up? Love the Way You Lie and S&M…

Great post. I’ve been wondering for a while if the public gawping at people like Charlie Sheen (who aside from being a woman beater is a very mentally ill man right now) and Lindsay Lohan is the modern day equivalent of ‘watching the Christians being thrown to the lions’ or a public execution in days of yore?

Humans have always liked watching others misfortunes to make them feel better (why else do soaps appeal?) and I think we are seeing the current way of doing it. The problem is that the lack of rules or punishment for these trangressions means that they are also being applauded in a rather icky way.

I think a big difference with Polanski is that you don’t have to see him to enjoy his work, whereas for a performer (actor or popstar) they have to be likeable to an extent.

Also – Gibson seemed to hurt his career more with racism than domestic violence. Remember – pre-violence accusation and post-anti-semitic rant he was kicked off the Hangover 2. And who was the celeb cameo in Hangover 1? Convicted rapist Mike Tyson.

Great point, Joe. You can quite happily watch a Polanski film without ever having to think about Roman Polanski.

Your point on Mel is right on the money too. His drunken anti-Semitic rant damaged his career more than the domestic violence charges, although you would think both actions would give an equally alarming insight into his personality.

I would find it impossible to watch a Roman Polanski film without thinking of Roman Polanski, seeing as he’s the director and everything in the film is designed to communicate his vision. What you see reflects Polanski’s personality, his view of the world, and his attitude to people (whereas the average actor is simply pretending to be somebody else in a film). And on the rare occasion that I have to sit through one of his films, I simply cannot avoid thinking about the fact that the director of the film I’m watching raped a 13-year-old girl, and then fled to Europe to avoid the consequences of his actions.

Personally, I’m with you, Jonathan. But many movie-goers seem to be able to ignore Polanski’s crime when watching his movies – and I think Joe might be on to something there by suggesting that they can do so because the director’s not actually on screen.

On the subject of Polanski, here’s a quote from George Orwell’s essay on Salvador Dali which seems appropriate:
“It will be seen that what the defenders of Dali are claiming is a kind of BENEFIT OF CLERGY. The artist is to be exempt from the moral laws that are binding on ordinary people. Just pronounce the magic word ‘Art’, and everything is OK: kicking little girls in the head is OK; even a film like L’Age d’Or is OK. It is also OK that Dali should batten on France for years and then scuttle off like a rat as soon as France is in danger. So long as you can paint well enough to pass the test, all shall be forgiven you.
One can see how false this is if one extends it to cover ordinary crime. In an age like our own, when the artist is an altogether exceptional person, he must be allowed a certain amount of irresponsibility, just as
a pregnant woman is. Still, no one would say that a pregnant woman should be allowed to commit murder, nor would anyone make such a claim for the artist, however gifted. If Shakespeare returned to the earth to-morrow, and if it were found that his favourite recreation was raping little girls in railway carriages, we should not tell him to go ahead with it on the ground that he might write another KING LEAR.”
[Full article here: http://www.george-orwell.org/Benefit_of_Clergy:_Some_Notes_on_Salvador_Dali/0.html and I think it’s fair to point out that I think L’Age d’Or is a great film]

And here, of course, we’ve got this kind of Benefit Of Clergy applied to entertainers as well as artists. Not that one can’t be both; what I mean is that we’re excusing the antics not only of those who create art, but those who simply clown about for our amusement.

Cut them some slack, in case they might write another King Lear / have another hilarious public breakdown?

I would love to see Lindsay Lohan sort herself out and go back to making films! I don’t get any kind of delight out of watching her fuck things up.

Sheen, Gibson and Brown – eh, whatever. Sheen and Brown I wasn’t particularly aware of before they hit the headlines for bad reasons, and I’ve always disliked Mel Gibson, and anyway I think anti-Semitism is in a very different category from addiction. But I definitely don’t get any pleasure from watching young female stars go on the drugs/drink/breakdown route: I’d love to see Lindsay Lohan and Britney Spears back on form and in control of their lives.

The whole cult of celebrity leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It certainly has a hook, but the squalid, pointless ambition – to be more popular at all costs – leaves me feeling depressed. Without a TV, I find I can be blissfully unaware of it. Is it possible to make sense of our culture without a TV? Maybe the distance allows for better perspective.
And anyway, I have twitter😉

A great post and as I read it I couldn’t help thinking of omegas and village idiots.

The omega in a wolf pack, is the bottom of the pile, they are picked on and are given all the menial tasks.

The Village Idiot is, or rather was, a recognised Social Role, that appears to have served a purpose, similar in some ways, to that of an omega. But also it protected an individual, with mental health issues, from the extreme measures that would be usually meted out to those who were different.

It is natural to stop, stare and point at difference. We no longer do it, because our mothers went to a great deal of effort to beat that impulse out of us.

The impulse remains though, we want someone to look down on, we want to mock, we want to attack, we want to put stocks on a pedestal, but we to don’t want to appear like bullies.

Thankfully we now have the damaged celebrity, who can fulfil all our uncivilised desires. Attacking someone richer, better looking, more successful and more famous than ourselves is never bullying, but my oh my it feels just as good.

What a depressing hypothesis! Makes total sense, though. It doesn’t feel like we’re being mean, condescending or bullying if the object of our hatred has a higher social status. There are no consequences to our nastiness – we can say what we like and no one will haul us up on it.

It’s like that adage about premiership footballers: “They can take the abuse, that’s what they’re paid for!”